Jolyon Rubinstein2015-03-03T15:57:58-05:00Jolyon Rubinsteinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=jolyon-rubinsteinCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Jolyon RubinsteinGood old fashioned elbow grease.Let's Make Lying in Parliament Historytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.62763762014-12-05T19:00:00-05:002015-02-04T05:59:01-05:00Jolyon Rubinsteinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jolyon-rubinstein/The Revolution Will Be Televised. But right now, I'm making a documentary for the BBC about why young people aren't interested in Westminster politics.

A recent survey suggested that only 12% of 18-24 year olds plan to vote in the 2015 general election.

If young people don't vote when they are first eligible to, it starts a pattern - there's a real danger that they won't ever vote.

As Vince Cable told me in a recent interview: "I think younger people may see that the system is skewed in the interests of older people, that's the way British democracy has turned out. Older people vote, younger people tend not to vote and so Parliament tends to reflect the interests of older people".

The underlying problem seems to be an increasing lack of trust and respect for politicians and therefore for the political process. Today, less than one in four people trust MPs. An all too common perception I've heard is that politicians are liars who are just out for themselves and that they don't represent our interests.

Next year it's the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta - a document that gave birth to the rights and freedoms we enjoy today. Is it now time for a new Magna Carta? Could a Magna Carta 2.0 improve people's faith in politicians?

This Magna Carta 2.0 could include a measure to make lying to Parliament illegal (and maybe have lying MPs thrown to the lions!). If I were to lie in a court of law, I would go to jail. If I make false or misleading statements as a director of a publicly listed company about my shares or assets I can face criminal prosecution. But astonishingly it's entirely legal for an MP to lie to Parliament.

It's one rule for them and one rule for us.

I interviewed Zac Goldsmith MP recently and he told me that he thinks our democracy is dysfunctional. I wasn't shocked when he said, "lying is a staple in Parliament". But the longer I sat with that statement the more uncomfortable I felt about it.

Zac also said: "At the moment you can lie to get elected. You can then behave in any manner you want in Parliament. You can do whatever you want. You can break every single promise you've made and there's nothing your constituent can do about it."

All those election campaign promises that are promptly broken - and the outrageous untruths spoken in Parliament. It's been suggested to me that the best way to begin the process of restoring trust and respect is to make it a criminal offence to deliberately lie in Parliament.
I'm not launching my petition as part of a campaign to actually have this law passed. Magna Carta 2.0 is, after all, my fantasy. Rather I want to start a long needed debate about re-engaging people in politics and about the importance of truth and trust in politics. What I want to discover is what support there would be if an MP were to propose a new law making lying to Parliament illegal. That's why I've launched this online petition.

Please sign the petition here and let's start a public debate about how we can make politicians' lies history.

Jolyon's documentary "Magna Carta 2.0" is due to air in February 2015 on BBC3 as part of the BBC's season celebrating the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta.

]]>Meet The Future of the Labour Party, Ewan Jeffries AKA Jolyon Rubinsteintag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.25738952013-01-29T10:38:18-05:002013-03-31T05:12:01-04:00Jolyon Rubinsteinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jolyon-rubinstein/The Revolution Will Be Televised), the next hot young thing in the UK Labour Party.

In the first of three instalments to be released in the next month on Hat Trick Productions new comedy YouTube channel Bad Teeth, Ewan meets the British public and proves that, as a determined career politician, he'll say literally anything to get their vote.

You can follow Jolyon Rubinstein at https://twitter.com/JolyonRubs]]>Bangladesh Journalists Denied Press Freedoms That We Take for Grantedtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20919182012-11-11T19:00:00-05:002014-01-23T18:58:21-05:00Jolyon Rubinsteinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jolyon-rubinstein/
When you are asking police officers whether they are "part of the hired entertainment", and watching a crowd of people dressed as gimps singing "we want torture, let us in," it's easy to forget that just under the comedy of the situation lies a very serious fact. The British intelligence services had been complicit in the practice of extraordinary rendition and we intended to highlight it.

In the first series of our BBC3 show, The Revolution Will Be Televised, we targeted government, the banks and corporations who needed a metaphorical slap in the face. Our attacks, although good-humoured, were designed with the specific intention of highlighting injustice.

During this process I began to realise that I am extremely lucky. A point that may have been missed whilst confronting George Osborne with a GCSE maths textbook, or when placing a 'kick me' sticker on Ed Miliband's back, is that we were, within reason, free to do so. We undertook our satirical tomfoolery knowing that we could walk away with, at worst, no more than a slap on the wrist.

Ongoing events in Russia, where two members of the punk girl band Pussy Riot are still behind bars, are well documented in the UK, but recent events in Bangladesh provide an even starker contrast to our own experience and receive far too little press attention in Britain.

For Bangladeshi journalists, reporting the truth has resulted in arrest, severe beatings and even death. The past year has witnessed a systematic attack on press freedom by the current prime minister, Sheikh Hasina and her Awami League government.

In the past year, there have been over 100 documented attacks on journalists in Bangladesh. In the majority of these cases, it has been a criticism or exposure of the ruling Awami League party that has drawn the fire of the government. In one startling case, Awami League members ordered nineteen journalists to leave the city or they would be 'chopped to pieces and buried.'

Recent cases are too numerous to mention here, but they include a machete attack in a newsroom, the public beating of three photojournalists after covering a student demonstration and the assault of three journalists by police because they had accused inspectors of abusing a 15-year-old girl. Privately owned television stations were even temporarily shut down to prevent them from covering a major rally of the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP).

The International Federation of Journalists has reported that there is a continuous threat and harassment against the press in Bangladesh. The World Development Indicators between 1992 and 2011 ranked Bangladesh as 11th in the Impunity Index Rating with regard to unsolved murders of journalists. 75% of journalists who have been killed so far in Bangladesh were targeted for reporting corruption, political scandals, and violations of human rights.

All of this is made even more deplorable by the reaction of the British government. Sheikh Hasina was given the red carpet treatment during the London Olympics. The prime minister, foreign secretary and leader of the opposition lined up to greet her with not a murmur of criticism. And while her henchmen did her dirty work back at home, she gave a speech at Number 10. This tacit approval of a regime that is brutalising journalists leaves me utterly repulsed.

As Bangladesh's largest financial backers - Britain contributes £250 million of aid each year - our government must use this leverage to demand a stop to this flagrant repression. Ministers at the Department of International Development and the Foreign Office must publicly challenge Sheikh Hasina to conform to basic standards of press freedom. Closed-door meetings or seeking 'assurances' is not enough when the beatings, disappearances and arrests show no sign of abating.

Where should the UK government start? Perhaps with an insistence that the case of Ilyas Ali is thoroughly investigated. A secretary in the opposition Bangladesh National Party, he disappeared along with his driver. Witnesses stated that the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) a government police force, who Hasina once described herself as a "death squad", took him from his car. Or they can demand the release of Mutafizur Rahman Sumon, who was reportedly beaten after heading a campaign against impunity for attacks on the media. He remains behind bars.

And in perhaps the most high-profile case, they should call for the release of Mir Quasem Ali, the head of the Diganta Media Corporation, which reaches millions of Bangladeshi through its TV and newspaper arms. Ali remains in prison after criticising the government-influenced War Crimes Tribunal. It is hard to believe that there are even some who call for Hasina to be put forward for the Nobel Peace Prize.

With elections next year, Bangladesh is entering an unsettling period in its short history, as it drifts towards becoming a one-party state. If an opposition remains, which I remain hopeful it will, Bangladeshis must be given a fair and balanced view on the political choice that awaits them. While our politicians remain shamefully silent, we must defend those who are brave enough to speak out in Bangladesh. And whilst I go round taking the piss out of the not-so-great and the not-so-good in the coming months, I shall be thinking more than once how lucky I am to be able to do so.]]>Why we Should all be Occupying The London Stock Exchangetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.10085802011-10-13T19:00:00-04:002011-12-13T05:12:01-05:00Jolyon Rubinsteinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jolyon-rubinstein/
First, the news came that all but two of the FTSE-100 companies used overseas tax havens, costing the UK government an estimated £18 billion per year in lost tax revenue. Then, Private Eye and The Guardian reported that Goldman Sachs had been let off paying £10 million in interest after bungling a tax avoidance scheme. Goldman Sachs wanted to employ London staff through a subsidiary firm in the British Virgin Islands tax haven. In April 2010 Goldman lost a legal action, leaving the government in line to collect £30.8 million plus £10 million in interest. But in a private meeting between Goldman Sachs and the permanent secretary of HM Revenue and Customs, Dave Hartnett, the £10 million in interest was simply waived, in what the Metro described as a, 'sweetheart deal.' Mr Hartnett, Goldman Sachs and HMRC have all declined to comment on the allegations although HMRC has said it 'could not respond to incomplete and therefore fundamentally flawed' accounts of arrangements.

This week also heralded the news in the FT that the European Banking Authority has ordered European Banks to raise their core tier one capital ratios - the key measure of financial strength - to 9%. For those not accustomed to financial jargon this means that the banks are being ordered to seek further recapitalisation, protecting what they are lending, so that they keep 9% in their reserves. However, this may well mean that instead of banks selling assets to raise the capital they simply stop lending as much. If they stop lending, a scenario the banks would prefer, there is a strong possibility that we could move into another recession. Unsurprisingly, commentators such as the BBC's Robert Preston on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme, has already predicted that in addition to a decrease in lending the banking sector will turn to the European taxpayer to help raise, according to Morgan Stanley's estimates, up to £240 billion needed to reach the 9% level in what will amount too yet another bail out to the banks.

These three stories serve to illustrate the state of play that I would argue prevails currently between government, big business and finance. The governments, as often as they can, seek to further the interests of capital without concerns that in so doing they are undermining the very real needs of the British public. Big business seek any and every opportunity in the name of their shareholders' quarterly profits to avoid paying the tax due to government, and financial institutions when asked to recapitalise and balance the books turn to the government and therefore the taxpayers for yet more bail outs.

In New York Citiy's Liberty Plaza, in the last four weeks, a group of individuals who gathered under the banner of 'Occupy Wall Street' have morphed into the NYC General Assembly. In LA, Boston, Chicago and over 800 other US cities similar affiliations of faith groups, trade unionists, musicians and left-leaning individuals have joined the unemployed and victims of foreclosures. The groups have been inspired by the events of the Arab Spring and popular uprisings in Spain and Greece against austerity measures. Popular slogans such as 'we are the 99%', have captured the imagination of tens if not hundreds of thousands. Kanye West and Russell Simmons amongst other celebrities have started to throw their support behind the occupation, which after initially being the subject of a news blackout has seen hysterical responses in some of the more notorious right-wing media. Former Fox News anchor ,Glenn Beck, warned that the protestors would 'kill everyone'. John Stewart used his 'Daily Show' to showcase some of the more incendiary descriptions of those participating in the movement. In a montage of some of the worst offending journalists from CNN, FOX and other right-leaning media outlets in the US news commentators used terms such as 'hippy sludge' and 'weed-smoking fascists' to describe those joining the protests.

Journalist and author of 'No-Logo' Naomi Klein has firmly backed the notion that non-violent occupation of public space is far more effective at forcing the hand of government than by any other means. In a speech to the assembled masses she claimed that Occupy Wall Street was 'The most important thing in the world now.'

This Saturday, October 15th at 12pm at Saint Paul's Cathedral Occupy The London Stock Exchange will begin. On the groups facebook event the end date of the action is stated as December 12th 2011. Over 4,000 people have clicked on the event as 'attending'. Anyone who has ever clicked on a facebook event will tell you this probably means less than half that number can be expected to camp up and start the protest in the UK. Even so, over 2000 people camped outside the London Stock Exchange on day one is more than a meagre start, and if events in the US are anything to go by, the number of participants may well increase day on day on day.

People will be participating in Occupy London Stock Exchange because they have completely lost faith in the process of electing government through the ballot box.

Party financing by big business and the revolving door between large corporations and government has become so ever present that it is difficult to find an elected official who is not an apologists for the financial institutions who have brought the global economy to the edge of the abyss. And then asked government for help to regain their bumper annual bonuses.

In 2008, post-Lehman, many hoped the rapacious nature of finance would modify itself, but the truth is that the bottom line will always be profit at all costs. Government favours capital's interests over labour and every financial indicator is that with no growth in the economy and unemployment at its highest for a generation, the situation is only getting worse.

It is my opinion that the cuts the Coalition has embarked upon in the UK, with no mandate and with no forewarning in their manifestos, is simply privatisation and closure of the provision of public services by another name.

Institutions like the NHS, that we all consider our birthright, are being devastated because we are told, there is no other option, when that is manifestly not the case. A unified message must now resonate around the country that the public will not be cowed into a programme of change that none of us voted for. Alternatives such as the Robin Hood Tax and clamping down on tax dodging corporations (estimated to cost the UK tax payer £95 billion per year) exist but are simply ignored by government because they undermine the very same vested interests that government unfortunately appears to answer to.

We should also be going because coming together with the like-minded in the face of seemingly overwhelming opposition will create an engine of change, as well as hope. Hope that fundamental and seismic change is not idealistic, but absolutely necessary if we are to emerge from crisis after crisis with a form of capitalism that takes into account the very real human cost butchered by profit at all cost. I know that hundreds of thousands of people all over the world feel this. I know that they are as angry as I am at government's attempts to ignore the will of the people as they tell us that it's very complicated and that we couldn't possibly understand. We do understand. We understand all too well.

And I will be going because I need to remind myself that other people in the UK think change is possible too. As one speaker at a Labour rally at Occupy Wall Street put it, at this protest, "We found each other."
]]>How Will History Judge Britain's Role In Libya?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9360012011-08-25T06:27:25-04:002011-10-25T05:12:01-04:00Jolyon Rubinsteinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jolyon-rubinstein/
How did we enter the Libyan conflict? The initial military intervention was authorised by UN resolution 1973 but we have ignored that resolution's primary demand for an immediate ceasefire, and its requirement that military force should be used only to protect civilians. We intervened, it was claimed, to protect Benghazi. We have since openly supported the rebels militarily, to bring about regime change, contrary to resolution 1973 and International law.

When, on February 15th, Riots erupted in Benghazi following the arrest of rights activist, Fathi Tirbil Salwa, Gaddafi's forces began a crackdown that saw protestors arrested and killed. These protests spread across the country, beginning in Tripoli, and were met with a fierce response by the regime. UN sanctions were then imposed on Gaddafi and on 5th March the National transitional council (NTC) met in Benghazi to declare itself the sole representative of Libya.

Significantly, on 16th March, Gaddafi's son, Seif al-Islam, speaking to French-based Euronews, stated that his troops were near Benghazi and "that everything would be over in 48 hours." This prompted fears of massacres in the rebel-held strongholds and led directly to implementation of Security Council resolution 1973 and the establishment of no-fly zones. It also crucially authorised member states to take "all necessary measures" for the protection of civilians. At this stage many, including Moussa Koussa, the foreign minister who defected to Britain, aired their concerns that resolution 1973 might bring about a de facto partition of east and west Libya. But on the 19th March, after a ceasefire having been called by the Gaddafi regime, Benghazi was attacked. NATO air strikes began the same day.

I am sure the attorney general would argue that the attack on Benghazi's citizenry justified pre-emptive strikes on the military assets of the Gaddafi regime. I expect that the destruction, after over 200 sorties by NATO jets of 800 tanks, heavy artillery and listening posts could legally be justified in the same vein.

Could it be that the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Prime Minister David Cameron had always wanted Gaddafi gone? They did not seek a further UN resolution, they did not seek a broader international consensus. Could this have been because in sight was what the NTC had heavily implied was on offer: greatly enhanced terms of trade?

Oil prices are currently at $100 a barrel, and the price keeps getting higher. Libya produced about 1.6m barrels a day before the start of the civil war but the six-month conflict has, according to the FT, reduced the oil flow to 50,000 b/d. In the Pelagian Basin, the West Sirte Basin, the East Sirte Basin and Murzuk, large cash incentives await the 'peace'. The international community is already clamouring to reposition themselves around the NTC with even China and Italy, who had previously expressed reluctance at getting involved, now becoming vocal in their desire to help the reconstruction effort. I wonder why?

To the victors, go the spoils, as the old adage goes and it may prove to have been a very lucrative war for both Britain and France. Cheap discounted oil in return for becoming the air force of the rebel militias is not a bad deal. I simply hope that the disarming of the militias, the enfranchisement of the citizenry, the restoration of running water and electricity to the people, will be given the priority these real and pressing 'reconstructions' deserve. Crucially, though, I hope that the wealth of the country's natural resources is conferred upon the people and that the ownership of the country's oil fields is constitutionally guaranteed to the new government and not, as was the case in Iraq, sold off to corporations who wait, rubbing their hands, in the wings.

As in Iraq, our PM has clumsily twisted a UN mandate to suit what could be argued was a pre-determined purpose. Cameron has shown a certain disregard for the instruments and institutions of international law whilst simultaneously claiming UN resolution 1973 justified our involvement.

The true reality of the nature and purpose of our intervention will be seen in the peace that follows. For although many similarities seem to abound in the nature of our self interest in both Iraq and Libya, I would argue that our saving grace may be a genuinely concerted effort this time round, to afford the people of Libya the democratic future that we purport to care so much about. History will judge our intervention in Libya by the results. I would rather we made good on our spin that we are the benign supporters of emancipation, but I fear that we may, as so many times before in our colonial past, be judged as being victors who ransacked the citadel. ]]>Has Britain Lost all Perspective as Well as the Independence of the Judiciary in the Wake of the Riots?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9307522011-08-18T15:43:55-04:002011-10-18T05:12:01-04:00Jolyon Rubinsteinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jolyon-rubinstein/
Magistrates and Judges are independent of government. To provide consistency the independent Sentencing Council sets guidelines, though judges can disregard them if they believe it allows the interests of justice to be served. Justice is the foundation of a fair society and when people lose faith in the Justice system's ability to doll out punishment proportional to the crime, we lose one of the key tennets of our democracy.

Should Blackshaw and Sutcliffe-Keenan face prison time? I would reason that prison is exactly the defining experience that will transform a miscreant impulse expressed on a social networking site into what will determine a young man's adult life. They will leave with a criminal record, making it hard for them to find employment, and far more likely to enter a permanent life of crime.

A four-year prison sentence approximates to that given in cases of grievous bodily harm or for holding someone at knifepoint. Were these two men's actions comparable to those crimes? I would argue that they were not.

Assistant Chief Constable Phil Thompson stated on Tuesday; "The sentences passed down today recognise how technology can be abused to incite criminal activity, and send a strong message to potential troublemakers about the extent to which ordinary people value safety and order in their lives and their communities."

Unfortunately, if facebook being 'abused to incite criminal activity' carries the danger of criminal sentencing then I know a great many people who should also be arrested. People I call 'friends' on facebook suggested shooting, neutering and staining with indelible ink suspected rioters. Is this not also incitement to criminal activity that should be punishable by law? Where is the line to be drawn?

Throughout the social media universe, during the riots, mass incitement was taking place on all sides; whether backing the police or the rioters themselves to become more violent, powerful and often regrettable sentiments where openly shared. Given this, I am afraid that we are in danger of finding scapegoats to make examples of without taking the broader reality of what took place online into account. As a friend of mine said, "If I read one more post asking the police to shoot the rioters I might leave Facebook altogether." I felt equally disgusted by some of the posts I read but, I thought, angry people post status updates, comments and links that they often wish they hadn't.

The real world, too, seems to be witnessing a bonfire of proportionality in courtroom judgements. Independence, impartiality and the ability to sentence on a case-by-case basis in the wake of the riots appears to have been all but abandoned. A senior magistrate was quoted on the Today Programme on BBC Radio 4 as saying that "extraordinary times have led to extraordinary sentencing." Of that there can be no doubt.

According to the FT, Nicolas Robinson, a 23-year-old student with no criminal record, has been jailed for six months for stealing a £3.50 case of bottled water from Lidl in Brixton. I found this shocking. But possibly the most disproportionate sentence so far has been passed in Manchester, where mother-of-two, Ursula Nevin, has been jailed for five months for receiving a pair of shorts given to her after they were looted from a store. Allow me to emphasise the last point: five months in prison for accepting the gift of a looted pair of shorts.

What, I wonder, will happen in the five months Ursula Nevin is imprisoned to her children? Will they learn the lesson that Tories like David Cameron, Jeremy Hunt and Michael Howard believe they will? That there was no excuse for their mother to accept the gift of a pair of shorts obtained through criminal behaviour, and that her sentence sends a clear message that her behaviour was totally unacceptable? Or will they in fact grow up with a vehement hatred and mistrust of the establishment in all its guises because their mother was put in jail and branded as a criminal for life after accepting a pair of shorts?

Most disturbing of all is the idea that a rioter's entire family be ejected out of council housing with all their benefits cut off. Where will these people go? Will they roam the streets? With no private income and no benefit money how and where will they raise their children?

Resentment builds on resentment and creates a more deeply entrenched feeling among those being made examples of, that there are two societies: the ruling class and the underclass whose destinies, wellbeing and, heaven forfend, encouragement to reform and succeed, are as nothing to the need of the ruling class to satisfy a desire to punish, diminish and tarnish those who we should be most concerned with helping. We are moving further and further into a reprehensible response fuelled by anger and fear rather than by any desire to learn from, understand and, dare I say, move forward.

Throughout the riots and in the aftermath, social media was alive with popular postings, but one that came back again and again is an African proverb that I think sums up how I, and many others feel, "If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel it's warmth."]]>Why The Secret Garden Party Made Me Proud To Feel English... Finally!tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9093962011-07-26T07:14:57-04:002011-09-25T05:12:01-04:00Jolyon Rubinsteinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jolyon-rubinstein/
But then my pride in the English was reignited; in a field at the Secret Garden Party in Cambridgeshire.

So many parts of English culture and folklore have been lost from our lives. Our high streets, towns and cities are filled with chain stores and mass-designed produce, a world away from the England of the past. Our quintessential traditions, myths and heritage are barely remembered, drowned out by the countless chains of the same fast food joints, coffee shops, supermarkets and cinemas. Homogeneity is crushing the true individuality of our nation.

But last weekend, with some 10,000 others, I took a break from all of that. In the fields of Cambridgeshire, in what turned out to be a world away, I experienced the most innovative, entrepreneurial and magical events that one could imagine.

Lines of billowing flags, reminiscent of the courts at Camelot, greeted us as we entered the site. Music of all genres spilled from tepees, huts and stages, augmented by a vast array of impromptu activities and performances. And all around, elated, happy people, dressed in all manner of attire from giant ironic road signs to knights in armour, went in quest of the next unexpected sight or sound.

I was struck immediately by the craftsmanship and attention to detail of every installation, stage and ride. For all of this seemed to be connecting us back to our forgotten heritage. Our myths, our essential culture, our English soul was being rekindled in the Ferris wheels, the helter-skelters, the hay-bale stages and poetry readings.

As I walked toward a lake at the centre of the site, minutes after entering, I was almost run over by a man on a piano, playing Chopin. He stopped, begged my pardon, tipped his hat and was off again, wheeling and playing, playing and wheeling. A huge smile engulfed me as I finally left London society behind.

That evening, as lanterns and ferries wheels lit the night sky, I started to think how constrained, regimented and uniform the England outside of the festival had become. Mass culture can leave the imagination bereft of inspiration and yet, in these fields, we had made a collective effort to surprise and dazzle each other. Nostalgic 80s memorabilia loomed large in the shape of giant board games and movie characters brought to life with loving care. Each reveller's job, I realized, was to amaze another.

True acts of altruism are certainly not inherent on the average British street but during the festival a community of the like-minded ate, smiled and danced in harmony. Our collective imaginations, it felt, were being rebooted and nourished.

One of the festivals crowning achievements is the Colesillyum. An arena surrounded on each side by 15-metre-high haybales, stacked on top of one another. At one point, at least six thousand revellers packed inside like coffee beans on top of each other. A man dressed as a giant panda and a woman dressed as a chimney sweep caught my eye and lifted me fully 10 metres up to the heady heights of the gantry. The panda turned to me and said, "we're all family here". He was right. We were all one family. Rejecting the supreme laws of individualism and rampant self-interest and deciding instead to help strangers, love the randomness of chance encounters and add to each other's sense of security and joy. How often can you say something like that about England?

Now I know that there will be those who will parody my sentiment, who will dismiss it as loved-up garbage spouted by a pseudo-hippy who sees the silver lining in a commercial endeavour, fuelled by drug-induced sentimentality. Too those critics or cynics, I say this: the true nature of our country and our cultural heritage lies in those ancient tales of chivalry, good will and altruism. The tales of Camelot, Shakespeare's plays, Keats's poems; these used to be the mobilising narratives of our nation, where our basic ideals of fairness, gallantry and kindness came to life and were shared. What do we have now? X-Factor, Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?, East Enders, Emmerdale and Coronation Street. Our country's true nature is being suffocated. And yet, so many of us are willing to pay a substantial price (£160) to enter a space like the Secret Garden Party to rejoice in re-finding these forgotten principles with so many like minds.

This weekend has once again made me proud to be English. To be part of a country where people flock to safe havens of alternative culture. Where performance, music, poetry, environmentalism, art, design and love abound. It is spiritually uplifting and rejuvenating and will leave an indelible mark on my year - and I suspect - for many others too. I think it's safe to say that festivals are something the English know how to do better than anyone else in the world.]]>'NHS-GP-Supermarket.com' - No Thank You!tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8982962011-07-19T11:44:43-04:002011-09-18T05:12:01-04:00Jolyon Rubinsteinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jolyon-rubinstein/
So what's my point?

Well, if I were to tell you that in the next 6 months to a year the 'price comparison' model was to be rolled out throughout the NHS, with particular focus on helping health 'consumers' 'choose' the 'best' GP practice in their local area, I think you would be as surprised as I was, initially.

According to my source, significant component of the 'competition' mechanisms that will be part of the NHS 'reforms', will compare 'value' or 'points' in performances of GP Practices. This will start with 1,500 GP practices in London and then will be rolled out throughout the rest of the country.

That's right! When you next have the flu, or a pain that simply won't go away, you'll be able to jump straight on to 'nhs-gp-supermarket.com' to find the right quack for you!

'Come on health consumers!' I'm sure they would counter. 'Get with the Con-Dem programme!' When you're feeling like death warmed up, you'll be able to identify which GP practice in your area is supposedly the 'best'! And even though it's an extra 20 minute-drive away, you'll be so pleased by their 'performance points', that you'll almost enjoy the butterflies in your aching belly, as you exercise your 'right to choose', and go wait in the over-crowded waiting room for your appointment with the 'No1 GP' - best in your 'hood'.

First, let me make the most glaringly obvious point possible: If I want car insurance or a flight to Greece there are companies out there that sell these services at variable prices. I think it's great that a website can search for the cheapest deal for me. But the difference is that GP practices in my local area have never come at a 'price'. Therefore, value will have to be attributed to their services. How are we going to do this? Through the introduction of 'targets' and 'KPIs' (Key Performance Indicators)? Yup, according to my source, that's more likely than not...

This idea, this mentality, this system of attributing points to GP practices, this mimicry of the private sector which puts a price on everything, makes one quake with trepidation for the future of the NHS.

We don't want to have to choose the best practice when we are sick. We're sick, for God sake! We want all the practices to be good, especially the one that is closest to our home, and to be regulated and monitored by those with the right qualifications using the right criteria. Not by some straw poll. The implications of putting a price on everything, is, as the old adage goes, that we value nothing.

But what do I know about being sick anyway? Well, when I was 21 years old I was, very suddenly, taken ill. There was no warning, and when the sickness and pain came, it came with tremendous force and intensity. I was taken to hospital in the back of an ambulance. Test after test revealed nothing. I was frustrated. I lay in a bed in a hospital corridor for a whole night, vomiting violently. A passing surgeon recognised my state and told me I needed immediate surgery or I may die. I was very scared as I was wheeled into surgery. I had to sign a document that said if I died from the anaesthetic the hospital was not culpable. Then I came to. The operation the surgeon performed was called a peritonitis. A cyst attached to my bowel and spleen had perforated, shutting them both down. It was a one-in-a-million chance that it could have happened. But it did happen. It happened to me.

There were times in the months after the operation that I felt shocked and angry. I was angry with the surgeon for not doing a cleaner job in stitching me up. I had stitches crossing back and forth along my belly. I was angry it had happened to me. I was traumatised by the whole ordeal and because of this was angry with all the staff at the hospital and the 'service' generally.

Imagine, if I could at that point, when I was at my lowest ebb, have marked the hospital's performance? What would I have said? If given the options between, 'Very Good', 'Good', 'Poor' or Very Poor' I probably would have said 'Very, Very Poor'!

These men and women, whose names I never knew, saved my life. It was a long time ago and I can see that now, but at the time, I'm not sure that I could.

Patients are not always in the best position to give an objective assessment of the 'service' that has been provided to them. This is why I believe that asking patients to 'rate' performance is fundamentally flawed.

I am also a firm opponent of targets.

When you put a GP, a teacher, a policeman in the position where they have to hit a 'target', surely you are diverting them from carrying out their core function? Surely we are preventing them from actually doing their job.

In David Simon's universally acclaimed, 'The Wire', an embattled police chief who, because his detectives can't close a couple of homicide cases, is passed over for an invitation to a VIP dinner at city hall says, "targets are all that matter now. Nobody cares how we do our jobs anymore as long as we hit our damn targets!" With that, he thumps the table and storms out of the room.

Do we want this mentality further introduced into our public services? I for one, think not.

]]>Could the Phone-Hacking Scandal Just be the Beginning?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8938162011-07-10T09:44:05-04:002011-09-09T05:12:02-04:00Jolyon Rubinsteinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jolyon-rubinstein/
If only it were that simple.

The need to sell-sell-sell coupled with the British public's insatiable appetite for tittle-tattle leads me to believe that this is just the beginning of revelations that will rock newspapers, magazine titles and anyone involved in 'news' to their collective core.

What are we going to do if we discover that the practices that have resulted in so much public revulsion have, in fact, been endemic in all tabloid newsrooms and in their glossy celebrity-filled counterparts?

For many years now I have thought that many popular British glossy magazines are becoming even more trash filled and unscrupulous than the tabloids, and in this belief I know I am not alone.

These magazines have, to my mind, almost become a law unto themselves, selling 'classy-trash' to the addicted masses who identify more with the salacious gossip they provide than anything that 'traditional' media does. Well, you don't get much about X-Factor in the Guardian and the Telegraph, do you? In some strange way they have captured and bottled celebrity, and convinced all who buy them that they are better off knowing the sordid details than not.

What's to say that the next couple of weeks won't reveal that hacking email and facebook accounts, even tracking the GPS signals from smart phones has also been common practice? According to a tech-savvy friend of mine, this all is very easy to do if you know how, and according to my friend, private investigators do...

Until this week a culture of impunity existed. Until this week we thought these practices where 'below' our press. Until this week we thought, with good reason, that common sense prevailed.

We were wrong.
So if the Millie Dowler hack scandal happened, if the hack scandals of the 7/7 victims and the dead of our two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq happened then, I'm sorry to say I am left wondering, what else has been going on? I bet we learn that the perpetrators of these actions have taken it further. I bet they just thought, 'why not'?

Why not clone email accounts and wait for juicy details to come through? Why not spy on facebook chats, private messages and photos? Why not even track your targets whereabouts by locking onto their smart phones' GPS signals?
If I am proved right over the coming weeks and months and in fact what we are dealing with is not simply NOTW, but the majority of the tabloid and 'glossy' press, then we must seriously start thinking about what criminal charges can and should be brought to ensure that this really does become a watershed moment in the history of the British press.

Independent judicial reviews must examine the whole of the industry. Do we really think that NOTW is a one off, acting alone amongst its competition? Hugh Grant, on BBC's Question Time, raised the spectre of the phenomenon being far broader than anyone has previously wanted to admit. And why don't we want to deal with that reality yet? Because when we do, we are going to have to deal with the fundamental question of regulation and standards authorities becoming realities in the tabloid realms.

I can't believe I'm writing this, but I'm starting to think that might be just what we need. I love you 'freedom of speech', but people have been taking the piss for too long, and it's all gone to pot.]]>